President Trump 2.0

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The mediators in Oman said Iran offered to give up all its enriched uranium and promised to never stockpile more...

Iran had previously signed an agreement to limit its nuclear actvities which Trump tore up so this would make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Plan_of_Action

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like I said, USA was bounced into the war by Israel, imo.

He's a poor leader and failed to stand up to Netanyahu. He did not need to get involved in Israel's actions and his ending of the deal with Iran caused Israel's concerns in the first place.

It's about how Starmer should have worked.

How should he have worked? Just become Trump's yes man?

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How has he crapped on the USA?

Well he is makiing us look horrible.... Most of the world is mad at this coutnry because of him.... WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!

Before this goes too far Hugh!!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Iran had previously signed an agreement to limit its nuclear actvities which Trump tore up so this would make sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Plan_of_Action

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------


He's a poor leader and failed to stand up to Netanyahu. He did not need to get involved in Israel's actions and his ending of the deal with Iran caused Israel's concerns in the first place.
How should he have worked? Just become Trump's yes man?

Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.

No he shouldn’t. He’s right to insist on defensive ops only and he’s right to refuse to deploy ships to Hormuz. Trump is chaotic, he’s unreliable, and we cannot become hostages to his fortune.

The sooner we accept that the US is unreliable for at least the duration of Trump’s presidency the better - it will kill off this dangerous impulse to do whatever America wants, on demand, as if we were back in 1991.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.

Your unbridled enthusiasm for the UK to become a vassal state is unbecoming of you. Trump should be happy that other countries buy into his philosophy of putting national interests first.

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Well he is makiing us look horrible.... Most of the world is mad at this coutnry because of him.... WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT!!!!!!!!!

Before this goes too far Hugh!!

Yes, indeed, Trump is certainly making the rest of the world mad at him, but how do you get him out? Dems winning the Midterms, followed by impeachment?

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Yes, indeed, Trump is certainly making the rest of the world mad at him, but how do you get him out? Dems winning the Midterms, followed by impeachment?

Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe

But if the Dems take just Congress, they might at least be able to rein him in somewhat, as they are supposed to control the purse strings. Plus, they can bog him down in investigations of his actions - particularly around Epstein, his appointees, and his family’s dodgy dealings.

Originally Posted by Dingbat

But if the Dems take just Congress, they might at least be able to rein him in somewhat, as they are supposed to control the purse strings. Plus, they can bog him down in investigations of his actions - particularly around Epstein, his appointees, and his family’s dodgy dealings.

Here’s hoping…

Originally Posted by Hugh

Impeachment wouldn’t be successful, as it requires 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate, I believe

Indeed.

Congress impeaches, which is in effect the equivalent of a grand jury hearing a case outline and voting to issue an indictment (indictment is a procedure we’ve abolished in any meaningful way in the UK).

The Senate is then roughly equivalent to a jury in a criminal trial, hearing all the evidence and voting on guilt or innocence. When seen in those terms, the requirement for a supermajority makes more sense, although with the senate itself now being directly elected by the people rather than filled with appointees sent by the states any such hearing is now so nakedly political as to be more or less pointless. If you know the political makeup of-up of the senate you know within a vote or two what the outcome will be.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like I said, Starmer should have allowed the USA to use our bases.

All he did was insist on our Sovereignty, and not being bossed about by the Leader of a bunch of Federated States…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

All he did was insist on our Sovereignty, and not being bossed about by the Leader of a bunch of Federated States…

Isn't that what Brexit was about too?

Originally Posted by Carth

Isn't that what Brexit was about too?